Yes, cumulative risk taking can result in a large amount of damage. But the costs of lockdown are high too. Lockdown advocates have caused _trillions_ of dollars in direct economic damage. And probably trillions more, if the intangible costs were properly accounted for (loneliness, ennui/boredom, sexual frustration0.
And those costs aren't born equally. Someone who is retired, partnered, and independently wealthy is not giving up nearly much as someone who is young, single, and poor. I don't see much effort by the lockdown advocates to quantify those costs.
People also have different preferences for risk. Lockdown advocates just assume that their risk preferences are the "right" one, when it seems to me that there is no "right" degree of acceptable risk.
Many lockdown advocates also like to pretend that there is _no_ acceptable level of risk to impose on others. Yet they consume alcohol, drive, and use electricity (all of which, statistically speaking, cause death to other people).
Now, of course, lockdown advocates would argue that they have prevented even more damage that would otherwise happen if the virus were left unchecked. But they're just making an educated guess based on limited information. And it's by no means clear that their strategy--locking down the entire population--is better than alternatives.
For example, a better strategy might be for the most vulnerable to quarantine themselves, and for everyone else to go about their business (albeit wearing masks, handwashing) until the virus has become less virulent.
#covid
And those costs aren't born equally. Someone who is retired, partnered, and independently wealthy is not giving up nearly much as someone who is young, single, and poor. I don't see much effort by the lockdown advocates to quantify those costs.
People also have different preferences for risk. Lockdown advocates just assume that their risk preferences are the "right" one, when it seems to me that there is no "right" degree of acceptable risk.
Many lockdown advocates also like to pretend that there is _no_ acceptable level of risk to impose on others. Yet they consume alcohol, drive, and use electricity (all of which, statistically speaking, cause death to other people).
Now, of course, lockdown advocates would argue that they have prevented even more damage that would otherwise happen if the virus were left unchecked. But they're just making an educated guess based on limited information. And it's by no means clear that their strategy--locking down the entire population--is better than alternatives.
For example, a better strategy might be for the most vulnerable to quarantine themselves, and for everyone else to go about their business (albeit wearing masks, handwashing) until the virus has become less virulent.
#covid